1. Do something, blame someone…In Plano, Texas, police have charged Lindsey Glass with violating a law making it a misdemeanor to negligently sell alcohol to a “habitual drunkard or an intoxicated or insane person,.” It seems she served Spencer Hight two gins, two beers and a shot of alcohol during two visits to the bar where she was working in September 2017, before Hight killed Meredith Hight and seven other people. After police officers shot and killed him, an autopsy found that Hight’s blood alcohol level was about four times the legal limit. The arrest affidavit said surveillance video shows that Hight was unsteady, spun a “big knife on the bar,” and could be seen “pulling out a gun” from his waistband.
It’s a terrible charge, and an unethical prosecution. Glass texted a co-worker, another bartender, saying that Hight had been spinning the knife and told her had had to go “do some dirty work.” A report by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said that the other bartender had called an owner of the bar, who instructed that police should not be called. Glass was so concerned that followed Hight to his ex-wife’s home and then called 911, according to local station Fox 4.
A lawyer for Glass emphasized that his client had called 911 and said she had been commended by police. “It is shameful of the Plano Police Department to go after the person who was vital in trying to stop the horrific events of that evening,” he told Fox 4 and NBC in a statement. Exactly right. Police, spurred by public anger and frustration, want to find someone to blame. The fact that the drunk went off and killed eight people is pure moral luck. It seems that the bartender went above and beyond her civic duty, at some personal risk, to follow Hight. She was originally commended by police for her actions. [Pointer: ABA Journal]
2. Another spineless college, undermining speech and education. Ugh. Well, make that Ugh #6,432, 922.
The University of Southern California Law School asked Jeh Johnson, the former Obama Secretary of Homeland Security, to withdraw as its commencement speaker, because Dean Andrew Guzman said that there were “concerns” about his appearance.
“Two Chicano members” of the law faculty, Daria Roithmayr and David Cruz objected to the invitation because Johnson enforced immigration laws, and honoring him “normalizes illegal state violence” and “legitimates” the “fundamental betrayal of core values.” In a letter, they denounced Johnson as displaying a “morally repugnant willingness to use those who are most vulnerable among us as means to an end.”
You know, like the “end” of enforcing the law.
Dean Andrew Guzman, who pushed Johnson to withdraw, said in a letter posted to the whole school,
“I informed Secretary Johnson that some faculty and students have raised concerns about the immigration policies of the Obama Administration and, therefore, about having him as our commencement speaker. Secretary Johnson shared with me that he believes that graduations should be free of tension and political controversy and for this reason has decided not to speak.”
Johnson is almost as bad as Guzman. Like most of the administration he served in, he’s a weenie, and too willing to concede vital principles for false peace. He should have stood up for free speech, diversity of opinion, respect for those we disagree with and rejection of the heckler’s veto.
3. Now THIS is an unethical father. I always found the story of how Johann Strauss actively tried to fight his son, Johann Strauss II’s ascension as the new “Waltz King” the most disgusting story of disloyal and selfish parenting of all time. This isn’t quite as bad—but it’s bad enough.
Lawyer George Sink Sr. is suing George Sink Jr. for using his own name in his new law firm. After Sink Jr. was fired from his father’s firm, he set up his own law firm as George Sink II Law Firm, in North Charleston. Sink Sr. advertises his firm’s 13 offices in South Carolina and Georgia, and is citing copyright law, arguing that since his son used his middle name “Teddy” while growing up to avoid confusion with his father, the use of George Sink II in the new firm was meant to confuse the public. Dad says that he’s lost clients as a result.
What an awful man. Not only is the lawsuit and copyright theory dubious, but what kind of father treats a son this way as he sets out on his own? The answer is “a bad father.”
In his suit, Sink Sr. claims trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, unfair trade practice, and dilution, insisting that he is taking this action “to protect consumers of legal services.” Quips Jonathan Turley: “It seems to be a rather dubious trademark claim to try to block an attorney from using the name that you gave him.”